No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
LA PREVISIONE POLITICA: NOTE EPISTEMOLOGICHE
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 July 2018
Introduzione
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Analisi previsionale e teorie della probabilità
Scarsa è la fiducia che i politologi, in particolare europei, nutrono nei confronti della validità scientifica delle indagini previsionali. Gravi appaiono ai loro occhi le limitazioni epistemologiche e metodologiche da cui tali indagini risultano afflitte. L'uso di modelli semplificanti e riduttivi, l'assenza di approcci pluridisciplinari, la mancata integrazione delle variabili politiche con altre variabili a loro strettamente collegate, come sono ad esempio quelle economiche, il frequente ricorso a tecniche estrapolative, sono alcune delle distorsioni più frequentemente riscontrate nelle ricerche politologiche di tipo previsionale.
Summary
Political scientists show a very limited confidence in attempts at forecasting. To all hypotheses aiming at the prediction of the future they much prefer statistical projections that are satisfied to reach the smallest possible uncertainty or the realistically highest degree of probability. Among the approaches implying these attitudes one may single out those connected with the institutional as well as the systemic analyses of politics. In no other political science approach but the systemic, induction always ends with a probabilistic conclusion. Therefore, the cognitive outcomes of every forecasting activity present rather different degrees of probability. On its part, the institutional approach indicates that all forecasting inquiries concerning the processes of construction of political institutions appear very complicated. All the changes represented by the weakening of parliaments, the strengthening of the executives, party government and the personalization of leadership are filtered through phenomena of inertia and routine resistances. Hence, when aiming at acquiring knowledge that may identify objective causal relationships, any forecasting effort encounters many a difficulty. The pursuit of this kind of knowledge is then obliged to take into account several and most diversified variables as well as their covariation. The findings are often quite poor. Nonetheless, this article suggests that the risk to make mistakes and to reach often disappointing outcomes should not deter the scholars from trying to engage in a sustained forecasting effort. After all, the findings will still be susceptible to revisions and corrections.
- Type
- Note
- Information
- Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , April 2002 , pp. 111 - 140
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2002 by Società editrice il Mulino, Bologna
References
Riferimenti bibliografici
Bolognini, M. (2001), Analisi del futuro e processi decisionali: il metodo Delphi, in «Democrazia elettronica. Metodo Delphi e politiche pubbliche», Roma, Carocci, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Box, G.E., Jenkins, G.S.M. e Reinsel, G. (1994), Time series analysis. Forecasting and control, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bright, J.B. (1968), Technological forecasting for industry and government. Methods and application, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carridi, A. e Dellasette, M. (1990), Tecniche di analisi previsionale, Torino, Editrice Universitaria Levrotto & Bella.Google Scholar
Cioffi-Revilla, C. (1997), Politics and uncertainty: theory, models and applications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Costantini, D. e Geymonat, L. (1982), Filosofia della probabilità, Milano, Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
Crain, M.W. e Tollison, R.O. (a cura di) (1990), Predicting politics. Essays in empirical public choice, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
De Finetti, B. (1937), La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives, in «Annales dell'Institut H. Poincarè», 7, pp. 1–78.Google Scholar
De Jouvenel, B. (1967b), Riflessioni sulle esperienze dei «Futuribles» francesi, in «Futuribili», 1967, 1, pp. 18–25.Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1965a), A framework for political analysis, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fabbrini, S. (1999), Il principe democratico. La leadership nelle democrazie contemporanee, Roma-Bari, Laterza.Google Scholar
Frantz, R. e Singh, H. (a cura di) (1991), On the methodology of constructing a composite indicator of political instability: a model, in «Handbook of behavioral economics», vol. II, New York, Jai Press.Google Scholar
Franz, M.L. von (1996), Le tracce del futuro, divinazione e tempo, Milano, Editori Associati, pp. 151–176.Google Scholar
Goodwin, P. (2000), Correct or combine? Mechanically integrating judgmental forecasting with statistical methods, in «International Journal of Forecasting», n. 2, pp. 261–275.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. e Kapur, V. (2000), Microsimulation in government policy and forecasting, Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hargreaves Heap, S.
et al. (1996), Scelte collettive, in «La teoria della scelta», Roma-Bari, Laterza, pp. 263–283.Google Scholar
Kahn, H. (1975), On studying the future, in Greenstein, F.I. e Polsby, N.W. (a cura di), Handbook of political science, Menlo Park (Ca) – London, Addison-Wesley, vol. 7, pp. 405–442.Google Scholar
Innes, J.E. e Booher, D.E. (2000), Public participation in planning: new strategies for the 21st century, Berkeley, University of California.Google Scholar
Israel, G. (1996), La mathematisation du rèel. Essai sur la modèlisation mathèmatique, Paris, Ed. Du Seuil.Google Scholar
Lanzalaco, L. (1995), Istituzioni Organizzazioni Potere. Introduzione all'analisi istituzionale della politica, Roma, Nis.Google Scholar
Latouche, S. (1995), La megamacchina. Ragione tecnoscientifica, ragione economica e mito del progresso, Torino, Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
Laver, M. e Shepsle, K.A. (1996), Making and breaking governments. Cabinet and legislatures in parliamentary democracies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahmoud, E. (1992), Bridging the gap between theory and practice in forecasting, in «International Journal of Forecasting», n. 2, pp. 251–267.Google Scholar
Malaska, P. (1994), La ricerca nel campo del futuro, in «Futuribili», n. 2, pp. 89–101.Google Scholar
March, J.E. e Olsen, J.P. (1992), Riscoprire le istituzioni. Le basi organizzative della politica, Bologna, Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Masini, E. (1980), Fondamenti filosofici ed etici della metodologia previsionale, in AA.VV., Previsioni di lungo periodo. Analisi esplorative, Milano, Franco Angeli, pp. 51–76.Google Scholar
Mises Von, L. (1939), Probability, statistics and truth, New York-London, The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Mitroff, I. (1973), Technological forecasting and assessment (Science and/or mythology), in «Technological forecasting and social change», n. 1, pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
Monti-Belkaoui, J. e Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (1998), The nature, extimation and management of political risk, Westport (Conn.), Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Morlino, L. (1989), Epitaffio per un approccio di successo: il sistema politico, in Panebianco, A. (a cura di), L'analisi della politica. Tradizioni di ricerca, modelli, teorie, Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 71–87.Google Scholar
Mueller, D.C. (1993), The public choice approach to politics, Aldershot, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Netti, P. (1966), The concept of system in political science, in «Political Studies», vol. XIV, pp. 305–338.Google Scholar
Ozbekhan, H. (1969), Business and government long range planning: impacts, problems, opportunities; proceedings, Providence, The Institute of Management Sciences.Google Scholar
Piccolo, D. (a cura di) (1983), Analisi moderna delle serie storiche, Milano, Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Polak, F.L. (1973), The image of the future, Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Popper, K.R. (1997), Verso una teoria evoluzionistica della conoscenza, Roma, 3a ed., Armando Editore.Google Scholar
Quade, E.S. e Boucher, W.I. (a cura di) (1981), Analisi dei sistemi e processi decisionali, Milano, Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Rusconi, G.E. (1979), Il concetto di società complessa. Una esercitazione, in «Quaderni di Sociologia», n. 2/3, pp. 261–272.Google Scholar
Salmon, W.C. (1971), Statistical explanation and statistical relevance, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W.C. (1984), Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, D. (1999), The economy, political forecasting and marketing of U.K. political parties, Essex, University of Essex, Department of Government.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1964), L'avenir des parlements, in «Bulletin Sedeis», n. 878, Supplément Futuribles, étude 74.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1980), La politica. Logica e metodo in scienze sociali, Milano, Sugarco, 2a ed.
Google Scholar
Schmid, A.A. (1988), Tra economia e diritti. Proprietà, potere e scelte pubbliche, Bologna, Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. e Wittrock, B. (1982), Methods in future studies. Problems and applications, Essex, Bowker Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Simon Belli, C. (1998), Teoria della previsione e analisi strategica, Firenze, Le Lettere.Google Scholar
Singer, J.D. (a cura di) (1968), Quantitative international politicy. Insigts and evidence, New York, Free Press.Google Scholar
Slutzky, E. (1937), The Summation of Random Causes as the Source of Cyclic Processes, in «Econometrica», n. 5, pp. 19–60.Google Scholar
Stapenhurst, F. (1992), Political risk analysis around the North Atlantic, New York, St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Urbani, S. (1989), La teoria del sistema politico: prospettive, in Panebianco, A. (a cura di), L'analisi della politica, Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 89–102.Google Scholar
Yule, G.U. (1924), The function of statistical method in scientific investigation, London, H.M. Stationery Off.Google Scholar
You have
Access